This invention relates to spectacles, writing instruments and their combined use, allowing a wearer the freedom to wear spectacles without interruption whilst having convenient direct access to an attached writing instrument. Spectacle wearers often need to be wearing their spectacles in order to see what they are writing.
In the Optical field, many eye conditions result in the need for spectacles. Some of these conditions include myopia, hyperopia, astigmatism and presbyopia. Safety spectacles and sunglasses are also examples of a need for spectacles, used for eye protection applications.
Presbyopia (the need for reading spectacles) is an inevitable eye condition affecting the lens within the eye. To be able to read, write or see up close, the lens flexes. This flexing action is known as accommodation. With age the lens loses its flexibility. Therefore simple close-up tasks like reading and writing become more difficult. This results in a certain need for spectacles.
Looking closely at the above definition of presbyopia, as an example, one can see the close correlation between the need for spectacles and the use of a writing instrument. Writing instruments may include but should not be restricted to pens, pencils, styluses and specialty trade writing instruments. Unfortunately, writing instruments are often misplaced. Therefore a spectacle and writing instrument combination which uses an integrated holding apparatus for the attachment of a writing instrument provides great advantages. One major advantage being the wearer has the freedom of uninterrupted use of the spectacles whilst having the option to directly access the attached writing instrument at all times.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,929,967 to Conner (1999) offers a solution to the pen and spectacles combination however it is very limiting in a number of ways. As Conner himself stated in the opening abstract, it is a case for glasses having a hollow barrel portion suitable for a “small pair of glasses” only. If the spectacle frame is larger than the narrow case, it would not be able to contain the spectacle frame. In today's changing spectacle fashion world, spectacle frames come in many sizes and shapes. Conner's narrow spectacle case is too limiting and only caters for spectacles of one size.
Conner does not present a practical solution to the pen and spectacles combination. The wearer must physically open the barrel from the rear to have access to the small spectacles inside and once the spectacles are in place on the wearer, the case is then used for writing. After use, the wearer must stop, remove the small spectacle frame from the worn position, fold down the temples and return it to its case in order to keep the two items together.
The extra steps involved in accessing and returning the spectacles would be a hindrance to the wearer.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,852,221 to Antonucci (1989) relies on two methods of attaching the writing instrument held within his apparatus.
In the first method, a sports sunglass band (Croakies) must be threaded onto the sunglass temples. A flat bar is attached to the apparatus, which is then tucked under the sports band on one temple in order to hold it in place. The writing instrument is contained within the apparatus. This method is complicated because the whole invention requires too many components. They include the spectacle temple, the apparatus itself, the flat bar extending from the side of the apparatus, the writing instrument and the tight fitting sports sunglass band.
Every time the user wants to attach the apparatus and pen, they must slide the sports band sleeve back onto the spectacle temple, slide the flat bar of the apparatus into the sleeve then reposition it so that it is comfortable enough to be worn on their head. The co-ordination of these steps is very time consuming as well as inconvenient.
The second method of attachment is the use of velcro. The sleeve with the attached velcro is also not practical because it is not integrated as part of the spectacles and can still slide freely along the temple length, making the attachment unstable for the wearer and therefore inconvenient. Each time the pen is removed, significant strain is concentrated at the area of attachment. Not only would the stability of this attachment be inadequate because the clip apparatus is not permanently fastened, but it would also be susceptible to unwanted separation and loss of the components.
Once again there are too many parts involved complicating the process including the spectacle frame, the clip, the writing instrument, the sunglass sports band and the velcro.
The flashlight attachment clip for spectacles, U.S. Pat. No. 3,769,663, to Perl (1973) is not relevant because it relates to the attachment of flashlights rather than writing instruments. The nature of Perl's “two part clip” is also unnecessarily elaborate. The clip is made up of one detachable part placed onto the spectacle temple and another part containing the flash light. The two are joined using a slot for the pivot stud at one end and a clamp on the other end. It also is adjustable vertically, pivoting on a stud so the wearer can move the flashlight up or down depending on the light position requirements. This is not relevant to spectacle and writing instrument combinations. It pertains to the adjustability of light beam positioning which is in no way relevant to writing instruments.
In modern day optics, Perl's temple-engaging clip would be unstable and prove to function poorly because spectacle temples vary greatly in size, thickness and shape. The likelihood of a perfect fit for every pair of spectacles is remote because of the vast range of temple dimensions. Perl has limited his attachment clip to two sizes only. If the spectacle temple is thicker, the wearer must physically bend up or break off the more narrowly spaced inner clip. Not only does this leave a rough and unsightly edge to the clip (as shown in his diagram, FIG. 3. Reference Numeral 25), it is also an extra effort for the wearer prior to being able to use the device.
Inserting and removing the flashlight, is likely to be a problem because Perl's two part clip is not securely fixed as part of the complete spectacles. A detachable clip may work loose from the spectacle temple and lack stability when worn. The whole clip could even slide and come adrift.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,430,503 to Colitz (1995) combines a pair of spectacles with a pen. The pen is unfortunately too far locked in, within one of the spectacle temples, and uses the locking mechanism to secure the temple in place.
The major obvious disadvantage is the wearer does not have continuous use of the spectacles. Spectacle wearers generally need to be wearing their spectacles to be able to see what they are writing. The wearer of Colitz's invention must physically remove and dismantle their spectacle frame in order to unlock the pen for use. Whilst the pen is in use, the wearer cannot wear the spectacle frame because of the dismantling process. Once the pen is dismantled for use, the spectacle frame is in effect missing one of its temples. Without a pair of temples, spectacles are not complete and cannot be worn. With one absent temple, there is no support on one side of the spectacles. This automatically disqualifies the use of the spectacles as it is now missing a supporting temple. Conversely, if the spectacles are used correctly with two supporting temples, the use of the pen is disqualified.
The absence of the temple on a pair of safety spectacles for example, would not qualify that pair of spectacles for safety standard requirements. This is because the frame is no longer secure when worn.
The diameter and shape of Colitz's pen needs to be considered a disadvantage. People with larger hands, men in particular, would find such a thin pen as illustrated in Colitz's FIG. 2 uncomfortable to use. Also the temples in Colitz's drawings are curved to fit behind the wearer's ear. Such a curve would not be comfortable or practical when writing.
U.S. Pat. No. 1,787,830 to Marvin (1931) is not practical for a number of reasons. To begin with, the wearer would have to wear the pen or pencil in a vertical position, pressed hard up against the side of the wearer's face. This vertical holding position would not be comfortable or safe for the wearer. Also, gravity working on a vertically placed pen or pencil within the leaf spring would tend to have a downward pulling effect on the pen or pencil, adding to the risk of it eventually dropping out of the attachment.
Aesthetically the vertical attachment of the pen or pencil is out of place as it is carried and displayed in a most cumbersome way. The vertical placement of the pen or pencil may also interfere with the varying facial contours of each respective wearer.
U.S. Pat. No. 3,647,059 to Humphreys (1972) shows a hollow cylindrical accessory receptacle mounted on a temple. The apparatus is used for dispensing small pieces of tissue used for cleaning spectacle lenses. This device, however is not relevant to the combination of writing instruments and spectacles because it does not include the use of a writing instrument.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,949,515 given to Hoshino (1999) is simply an additional spectacle frame “which can be put on together with other ordinary spectacles to correct among others, age related farsightedness”. However it remains irrelevant because it does not include the use of a writing instrument.
Marrufo (1958) U.S. Pat. No. 2,850,152 has tried to combine three items together using a case. It is simply a flexible pouch-type case offering the user three compartments to organise three objects separately which can be worn on the belt or in a pocket. These objects may include spectacles, pens, combs and the like. Marrufo's invention is not relevant as it does not combine, by attachment, a writing instrument and a pair of spectacles.
In conclusion, no writing instrument and spectacle combination formerly developed provides the practical simplicity of a pair of spectacles with an integrated holding apparatus for directly attaching writing instruments to the spectacles. These prior art examples demonstrate defects by using unnecessary multiple components, impractical choice of positioning, and more importantly these earlier patents show an interruption in the continuous wear of the spectacles in order to access the writing instrument.